From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re C.B.D.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Sep 24, 2012
A134587 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2012)

Opinion

A134587

09-24-2012

In re C.B.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MARIN COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.D., Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Marin County Super. Ct.

Nos. JV25114A, JV25115A)

In 2010, C.D. (Mother), mother of A.M., C.B.D., and C.D., filed a petition under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 to set aside the juvenile court's order setting a permanency hearing under section 366.26 (366.26 hearing) for all three children, and we affirmed the order as to C.B.D. and C.D. (April 22, 2011, A130664). The following year, Mother filed an appeal (the first appeal) from the juvenile court's orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (section 388 petition) for reunification services as to C.D. and terminating her parental rights to C.B.D. (July 27, 2012, A132559, A132864). We affirmed those orders.

To obtain context, maintain consistency and economize judicial resources, we take judicial notice of our prior opinions and the record in the prior matters. (See Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a); In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 674, fn. 3.)

While the first appeal was pending, Mother filed the instant appeal challenging the juvenile court's subsequent order awarding legal and physical custody of C.D. to C.D.'s father and terminating jurisdiction over C.D. Her sole contention in the instant appeal is as follows: "Th[e] [Court of Appeal] has not yet addressed the issues Mother raised in her prior appeal . . . concerning her section 388 petition for reunification services [as to C.D.]. [¶] Since the prior orders must be reversed for reasons stated in the first appeal, all subsequent orders based on those improper orders must also be reversed." However, as noted, we have since affirmed the juvenile court's order denying Mother's section 388 petition. Thus, we hereby dismiss the instant appeal as moot.

DISPOSITION

Mother's appeal from the juvenile court's order awarding legal and physical custody of C.D. to C.D.'s father and terminating jurisdiction over C.D. is dismissed as moot.

______________

McGuiness, P.J.
We concur: ______________
Pollak, J.
______________
Jenkins, J.


Summaries of

In re C.B.D.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Sep 24, 2012
A134587 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2012)
Case details for

In re C.B.D.

Case Details

Full title:In re C.B.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MARIN…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Sep 24, 2012

Citations

A134587 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2012)